In his first week in office, Bush:
1. Rolled back all the last minute regulatory changes of the Clinton administration, just as Obama rolled back those by Bush.
2. introduced a $1.6 trillion tax cut even as the surplus was disappearing and indicated that he didn't care at all if Democrats supported it since he had won the election.
3. Reversed an Executive order by Clinton that had reversed an executive order by Reagan to reestablish a policy denying any US aid to international organizations or governments that provided information about contraception or abortions. Obama reversed this reversal of a reversal of Reagan's original proclamation. How's that for confusing.
4. Introduced his educational reform program for "no child left behind" in conjuction with a program of vouchers.
5. Created the office of faith based initiatives to funnel taxpayer dollars to religious groups.
6. Reversed US environmental policies wholesale, abrogating a treaty already signed by the US and vowing to open ANWR to drilling.
One may agree or disagree with these policies. At the time, much like Obama, Bush received high grades for leadership in the opening days of his administration and was also attacked for gross partisanship in the priorities he set and the manner in which he pursued them. Shortly after Bush indicated his intention to cancel the anti-ballistic missile treaty and back off of US policies on disarmament and to pursue Ragan's "star war's" missile defense system.
These items were massive reversals in the direction of the country implemented by a President who had lost the popular vote and been appointed president by a partisan SCOTUS in a decision that rewrote two centuries of Constitutional precedent. From Bush's perspective, the situation was simple. However it had happened, he was the President and he intended to use his office to further the agenda on which he had campaigned. Did you really expect less from Obama?
Text in bold is mine...
I agree completely with you that elections have consequences and it should come as no surprise that Obama will attempt to implement many of the ideas that he campaigned on; just as George Bush did. If for the next four/eight years, however, you intend to respond to every criticism of Obama with a tit-for-tat comparison to Bush, then you you have an obligation to be factual in your comparisons.
Phil Gramm AND Democrat Zell Miller introduced their version of Bush's plan. Bush submitted his own plan in early February (day 20 per PBS.org). Your notation that the plan was introduced with the support of one single Democrat is pretty funny and totally misleading, because using that "logic," only one single Republican, Gramm, supported the tax cuts...Gramm and Miller were Co-sponsors. In the end, only 31 Senate Dems voted against the tax cuts vs. 19 who supported it by voting for it or were too chickensh!t to cast a vote against (a de facto vote FOR the tax cut).Quote:
2. introduced a $1.6 trillion tax cut even as the surplus was disappearing and indicated that he didn't care at all if Democrats supported it since he had won the election. Timeline not correct, and I'd be very surprised if you can provide a quote where Bush said what you claim. On January 22 (Day 2), Phil Gramm introduced the President's plan for tax cuts with the support of a single Democrat, as reported on CNN.com.
What I further found interesting with your misleading "with the support of a single Democrat" line was an attempt to couch Bush as the partisan idealogue trying to ram things down the Democrats' throats early in his administration. I trust that when Obama gets an equal amount of support (or even less) from today's GOP than Bush got from the Democrats in '01 that you'll be accusing Obama of being the partisan idealogue pushing stuff down the GOP's throats, right? Trust me, I won't be holding my breath. ;-)
Day 10 or day 39 is entirely different than "in the first week." Unless you use some sort of Mesopotamian or Gregorian calender that I'm not familiar with. ;)Quote:
5. Created the office of faith based initiatives to funnel taxpayer dollars to religious groups. Not so much. Timeline is incorrect. Accordong to PBS.org, the proposed office of faith based initiatives was announced on day 10 with follow up in February (Day 39) when the President indicated that he wanted to funnel $14 billion in new funds through faith based oganizations.
And as you've noted, "barely more than 60 days" is a far cry from "in the first week."Quote:
6. Reversed US environmental policies wholesale, abrogating a treaty already signed by the US and vowing to open ANWR to drilling. What treaty are you talking about? If you were referring to either Kyoto or ABM your timeline is again wrong. And a wholesale reversal of environmental policies would be pretty tough to accomplish since Whitman at the EPA wasn't even confirmed by the Senate in Bush's first week. Which environmental policies do you refer to? You're right. These action actually happened piecemeal over the first 60 days but began well before Whitman was appointed. NPR.org reports "After barely more than 60 days in office, President Bush has placed a distinctive mark on U.S. environmental policy, rolling back campaign promises on clean air, reversing Clinton administration initiatives on drinking water, and promoting new oil exploration in previously protected regions. And now the White House is taking steps to have the U.S. withdraw its support for a landmark 1997 global warming agreement signed in Kyoto, Japan. Environmental Protection Administrator Christie Todd Whitman told reporters the president had "no interest in implementing it." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was even more blunt."
Sorry to split hairs, but when someone throws out statements of facts like, "in his first week Bush...." I just think think they/we have a good-faith obligation to make sure those facts are correct.